12-07-2018, 02:33 PM
I think it's a smart play for the Big Ten now that the rules have been relaxed to allow a championship game for the Big 12 despite the lack of divisions.
Divisions are a relatively recent innovation in college football. They're not sacred. I'm all for the best two teams in a conference to play in a championship game. (It creates some unavoidable scheduling headaches of course; this year, it would've meant a UW-WSU rematch a week after the Apple Cup. A future year could see Stanford-Cal the week after Big Game or USC-UCLA the week after whatever they call their rivalry game (not sure if "the Battle for L.A." is semi-official or just something TV networks decided on, but it sounds like it should star Snake Plissken).)
Is the risk of that something to be avoided at all costs, or is it an acceptable risk in order to ensure the best possible championship game? It would also, of course, mean we'd get more games against Arizona, Arizona State, Utah, and Colorado on average, and fewer games against Oregon, Oregon State, Washington, and Washington State. I'm... fine with that?
Divisions are a relatively recent innovation in college football. They're not sacred. I'm all for the best two teams in a conference to play in a championship game. (It creates some unavoidable scheduling headaches of course; this year, it would've meant a UW-WSU rematch a week after the Apple Cup. A future year could see Stanford-Cal the week after Big Game or USC-UCLA the week after whatever they call their rivalry game (not sure if "the Battle for L.A." is semi-official or just something TV networks decided on, but it sounds like it should star Snake Plissken).)
Is the risk of that something to be avoided at all costs, or is it an acceptable risk in order to ensure the best possible championship game? It would also, of course, mean we'd get more games against Arizona, Arizona State, Utah, and Colorado on average, and fewer games against Oregon, Oregon State, Washington, and Washington State. I'm... fine with that?